Holder Defends Decision to Use U.S. Court for 9/11 Trial

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday defended his decision to prosecute five men accused as co-conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks in federal court in Manhattan, declaring that while he believes “we are at war,” that the venue was the best place to pursue the case against them.

Despite criticism that holding such a trial presented greater risks than a military commission, Mr. Holder argued that there were fewer differences between the rules for federal court and the military panels than some critics realize. And, he argued, the Southern District of New York has a long history of successfully prosecuting terrorism suspects.

“We need not cower in the face of this enemy,” Mr. Holder said, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is ready, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

But Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican, objected to characterization of opposition as cowardice. He argued that there were strong reasons to prosecute the accused, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, before a military court.

“It’s not cowering in fear of terrorists to decide the best way for this case to be tried is to be tried by a military commission,” Mr. Sessions said, adding: “I think there are clear advantages to trying cases by military as opposed to what can become a spectacle of a trial, with high-paid defense lawyers and others focused on using that as a forum.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19detain.html?th&emc=th

[doc03]

1. The part I don't see about these trials is how on earth

can the court find these guys guilty of anything when the entire constitution was shredded. Did anyone read them their rights? How many years went by without them even being charged with anything? Then there is the water-boarding. Then you have the AG and the President of the US saying they are confidant they will be found guilty. Whatever happened to public officials and the media always having to be careful and say the alleged perpetrator. I don't see how the court could possibly find them guilty after all of that. Like a local talkshow host said on the radio this morning if these guys get out on some kind technicality the Democratic party is toast (and he usually leans to our side). All of that crap is going to come out in court and will embarrass the US, it won't matter when or who water-boarded them, if they get off the Democrats are going to get crucified for decades.

[groovedaddy]

2. I firmly believe that Holder is counting on Court Room confessions. The "accused" want to go

on trial so they can have their say - not to deny their involvement but to justify it. That will keep it in court and will also convict them.
I'm sure that Holder knew of this possibility and picked the court on this basis.

[doc03]

3. What if he is wrong? Besides that even if they do

how can this not be declared as mistrial? I mean killers have walked because they weren't read their rights. How in the hell can the water-boarding be dismissed? Killers have been released because cop's coerced them into a confession. I can see this turning into a total cluster f---.

[doc03]

4. I haven't met one person besides a couple

Democratic spinmeisters that agree with this. I asked an Attorney that I know this morning what he thought about it and he was totally against the idea too. The guy is also a die hard Democrat.